“Most people seem to have no idea he’s wearing anything other than normal eyeglasses.”
-
@urlyman (not very different from a GoPro on one's cycling helmet, actually. And on that, I don't really like hard objects on protective hats, which can be force concentrators. Burying it in the shell could be safer.)
@Photo55 quite a lot different, actually
-
@Photo55 technology is not neutral, it is deterministic. That some people put extremely dangerous ideas to good use does not change the overall determinism
@urlyman facilitative.
-
@urlyman facilitative.
@Photo55 comes to the same thing
-
…Meta Ray-Bans are a form of assault
@urlyman a vendor at a cooperative mall was evicted because he refused to stop wearing his. He was creeping other vendors out by photographing them without consent and talking about how he was trying to cover the video recording light. I can only imagine how customers felt when he focused on them and touched his glasses.
He and a bunch of his (old, Republican-voting) buddies tried to bury the mall with one-star reviews, all complaining that the management were "against new technology and progress".
-
@Photo55 comes to the same thing
@urlyman it does not. You may consider it as a line of progression, but it is not an identity.
Also, assault is assault. Taking photographs or movies may be an invasion of privacy, can be ill-mannered, might be a tort, could be part of a crime.
But is not assault. That's a well-understood word which has particular careful usage which needs preserving. -
@urlyman it does not. You may consider it as a line of progression, but it is not an identity.
Also, assault is assault. Taking photographs or movies may be an invasion of privacy, can be ill-mannered, might be a tort, could be part of a crime.
But is not assault. That's a well-understood word which has particular careful usage which needs preserving.@Photo55 my post is a polemic, a metaphor. I make no apology for it.
I also tend to think that Go-Pros on cycle helmets are a bad idea
-
@urlyman a vendor at a cooperative mall was evicted because he refused to stop wearing his. He was creeping other vendors out by photographing them without consent and talking about how he was trying to cover the video recording light. I can only imagine how customers felt when he focused on them and touched his glasses.
He and a bunch of his (old, Republican-voting) buddies tried to bury the mall with one-star reviews, all complaining that the management were "against new technology and progress".
@AbramKedge @urlyman Reminds me that Pelicot in France was first investigated for his crimes after getting caught trying to take pictures up women's skirts at the mall. That led to the discovery of his much larger crimes. Wonder what else that guy at your mall was up to.
-
“Most people seem to have no idea he’s wearing anything other than normal eyeglasses.”
Which will apply to him and the other 7 million and rising wearers of Meta Ray-Bans
Smart glasses are 'an invasion of privacy' - Meta's are selling better than ever
The biggest tech firms are set to sell millions of smart glasses despite growing privacy concerns.
BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
I don't know anyone who has these, I never see anyone using them.
Who is buying them and where are they going?
-
Nice idea, although maybe it should be a dunce hat
@urlyman @greg_harvey @rachel
Hat from 1978, Radio Shack catalog number 60-3005Waybacked (because this slop.txt website is blocking with clownflare):
https://web.archive.org/web/20260513105434/https://www.radios1.com/radio-shack-fire-helmet.htmlGreat story, including what looks like a real comment from the author's Mom:
https://dfarq.homeip.net/radio-shack-fire-chiefs-helmet/
"I don’t remember who got the helmet for me, but I got it for Christmas. From what I understand, it was a popular passive-aggressive gift to give to the kids of someone you were mad at. Maybe that’s how I got mine." -
I don't know anyone who has these, I never see anyone using them.
Who is buying them and where are they going?
@futurebird me neither but I am sure as hell on the lookout for them now
-
@AbramKedge @urlyman Reminds me that Pelicot in France was first investigated for his crimes after getting caught trying to take pictures up women's skirts at the mall. That led to the discovery of his much larger crimes. Wonder what else that guy at your mall was up to.
@hydropsyche @AbramKedge @urlyman see also Andrew Hutchison, a nurse, caught taking photos in a sports centre changing room leading to discovery of more photos of serial abuse he committed at the hospital
-
@futurebird me neither but I am sure as hell on the lookout for them now
@urlyman @futurebird This might be useful.
GitHub - yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses: attempting to detect smart glasses nearby and warn you
attempting to detect smart glasses nearby and warn you - yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
GitHub (github.com)
-
@hydropsyche @AbramKedge @urlyman see also Andrew Hutchison, a nurse, caught taking photos in a sports centre changing room leading to discovery of more photos of serial abuse he committed at the hospital
@jackeric @hydropsyche @AbramKedge @urlyman
Amazon sells stickers meant to cover up the LED light on the Ray Bans.
-
@urlyman it does not. You may consider it as a line of progression, but it is not an identity.
Also, assault is assault. Taking photographs or movies may be an invasion of privacy, can be ill-mannered, might be a tort, could be part of a crime.
But is not assault. That's a well-understood word which has particular careful usage which needs preserving. -
@jackeric @hydropsyche @AbramKedge @urlyman
Amazon sells stickers meant to cover up the LED light on the Ray Bans.
@MyWoolyMastadon @jackeric @hydropsyche @urlyman that's disappointing. This guy complained that he was unable to cover the light without stopping the camera working, so I thought that the manufacturer had at least an iota of morality.
-
@urlyman
spanners may be used to hit people on the head.
But if your wheel needs changing you'd regret the weapon being banned.People commit assaults, other indiscretions, torts, crimes.
Machines, as yet, do not.My daughter's use case - steady recording ahead from atop a horse - seems rather a good one.
Possibly the frames should be orange stripes or some such.
your daughter's use case appears to be white-washing the destruction of privacy & the ability of others, including victims of domestic violence, to go out in public without being spied upon
let's be real, she does not need to be "steady recording from atop a horse" unless she's a f'n police officer & from her uniform & position we members of the public already know she's a f'n instrument of the state
sheesh people, this ain't rocket science, it's human decency
-
your daughter's use case appears to be white-washing the destruction of privacy & the ability of others, including victims of domestic violence, to go out in public without being spied upon
let's be real, she does not need to be "steady recording from atop a horse" unless she's a f'n police officer & from her uniform & position we members of the public already know she's a f'n instrument of the state
sheesh people, this ain't rocket science, it's human decency
@peachfront @urlyman
Are you actually well? -
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@neonsnake @urlyman
I agree about that.
Locally, if one were carrying a spanner along the pavement, one might be asked to explain why.
The same could reasonably be applied to the camera-equipped eyewear, possibly involving some rather carefully-drafted primary legislation, although I suspect that's unfeasibly hard.But the problem recently complained of is _behaviour_, and there is law already about attributing images and speech to people hence the difference between street photo and advert.
-
@neonsnake @urlyman
Meta, BTW, are well-known to be vile and pleased by it.
Bad people do bad things.
Good people much less often, and usually less bad things.Look to the other crimes of the bad people, not focus on equipment.
